Gov't Spending

Not a logic failure at all. The numbers used are statistics, meaning they could show whatever you want the them to. For instance, the way we count unemployment currently, is different than the way we counted it for the great depression.

We could be employing more new people to the workforce while laying off/firing/whatever more people who were employed meeting qualifications to make both statements factual.

__________________--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick HenryI'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker techingWill soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts

What worries me is that even when companies are reporting great results, their stocks are still plummeting. The economy is being wrecked by it's politician's indecisiveness. I don't care if I lose my education benefits, although it will cost me $60,000 of entitlement. I volunteered. I just want the government completely out of debt. The government is like being attached to a psychotic spouse that can't stop spending your money and then if that wasn't enough, spending money it never had in the first damn place!

What worries me is that even when companies are reporting great results, their stocks are still plummeting. The economy is being wrecked by it's politician's indecisiveness. I don't care if I lose my education benefits, although it will cost me $60,000 of entitlement. I volunteered. I just want the government completely out of debt. The government is like being attached to a psychotic spouse that can't stop spending your money and then if that wasn't enough, spending money it never had in the first damn place!

You bring up a good point. Ignoring this problem is going to destory everyones retirement, and I really don't want to work until the day I die but at this point it looks like we all will.

all i said is that people were paid to work. this by definition raises employment. Whether or not it is the most efficient way is moot. People are claiming unemployment is higher after more people were hired to work. Its complete logic fail.

no, its not. Because it ignores the fact that its possible more jobs can be lost in the private sector than gained by the govt employing people from crowding out, expectation changes, etc... Not to mention, the employment created by stimulus was temporary, so giving somebody work for 3-6 months at the expense of a real job is a net negative.

And it should, because it's a co-opted term that no longer accurately represents the subject. It's a term the right wing has tried to make mean something other than what it actually does, and aided by its media arm has done a pretty good job of it. Rights for example are entitlements, but no one would dare cast a downward eye on rights. But entitlements, oh no, those cause black people to drive Cadillacs. And we can't be having that.

Plenty of left-leaning economists call the programs entitlements too, and plenty of left-wing political philosophers don't think right's are entitlements (unless you redefine rights to mean something different then they are). Sorry, but you have zero supporting evidence.

The decision of left-leaning economists and philosophers to continue using the term (correctly, and under the assumption that the audience understands the term properly) has no bearing on the fact that the term has been co-opted by the right wing. Leftist thinkers may understand the term properly, but low-information America does not.

The decision of left-leaning economists and philosophers to continue using the term (correctly, and under the assumption that the audience understands the term properly) has no bearing on the fact that the term has been co-opted by the right wing. Leftist thinkers may understand the term properly, but low-information America does not.

Sorry, but you don't realize that leftist economists and philosophers respect supposed Right-wing economics AND Burkean/Oakeshott-ian/traditionalist conservatism, and that your political analysis will always be shoddy because you can't even summarize political conservatism, or the economics in use by those you characterize as right-wing, you simply dismiss it.